[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Ornithopsida (was Re: Dinosauria---Rejected Name?)

I can't speak for Jaime. However, from my own perspective, any sweeping proposal of this kind should be comprehensive (i.e., taking in account all taxa, living and fossil). Otherwise, you risk ending up with a classification that isn't very coherent, and likely to turn into something that is just new and more complicated without any obvious benefit.
It's sort of like having a partial blueprint, getting halfway through building a structure, and then discovering you will end up having to do a lot of expensive and time-consuming retrofitting when you finally get the blueprints finalized. It's best to have a comprehensive plan at the beginning, it is much more efficient, and you will almost certainly end up with a lot better results and much less frustration. It doesn't have to be a detailed blueprint, but comprehensive enough to have a good idea of the big picture. At least that has been my experience.
------Cheers, Ken
From: NJPharris@aol.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:15:54 EST

In a message dated 2/24/02 3:29:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
qilongia@yahoo.com writes:

> To what resolution besides purely crown-clade groupings can this offer
> purely fossil taxa? Life is more than living versus fossil groups, and
> this phylogeny would be based soley on living groups, often to the
> detriment of any resolution offered by fossil taxa. I think this point was
> raised before.
Eh...I'm afraid I don't see your point.

--Nick P.

_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com